Fire Brad Treliving

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Don't know how you can be so definitive without knowing what the options were.

Translation: ‘The Hamonic deal was bad because even though the team needed to make a deal for a defenceman, I know there must have been a better deal out there, even though I have no idea what.’

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Translation: ‘The Hamonic deal was bad because even though the team needed to make a deal for a defenceman, I know there must have been a better deal out there, even though I have no idea what.’

Let me try this:

Translation "I am so close minded towards other's people views that it is better to mock their opinions than listen to them".

Saying the Flames needed a defenseman and saying they had to trade two 2nds and a first for Travis Hamonic are two entirely different things

I guess you're saying that since the Flames need a winger you are going to praise whatever UFA they may pick up, no matter the deal.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's certainly defensively challenged.

I guess my issue is saying that in a thread suggesting Treliving should be fired someone is saying the Flames should have tanked (when, I'm not sure). Which I guess means Treliving should have built a total loser.

No doubt. That argument is quite nonsensical.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Let me try this:

Translation "I am so close minded towards other's people views that it is better to mock their opinions than listen to them".

Nice try, but not remotely comparable.

Saying the Flames needed a defenseman and saying they had to trade two 2nds and a first for Travis Hamonic are two entirely different things

True. But the going price for a #4 defenceman is not low, and if you're going to say there was a better deal out there to be made, the onus is on you to demonstrate that.

I guess you're saying that since the Flames need a winger you are going to praise whatever UFA they may pick up, no matter the deal.

No, but if the Flames pick up a useful UFA winger at the going price, I'll at least be intelligent enough to know that I have no grounds for complaint.

If you want to maintain that there was a better alternative, you should at least be able to describe what that alternative might have been.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

...Saying the Flames needed a defenseman and saying they had to trade two 2nds and a first for Travis Hamonic are two entirely different things...

The deal for Travis Hamonic was not just Travis Hamonic. It was 27-year-old Travis Hamonic with three years remaining on a deal that pays him under $4.0 m per season. There have been a few defensemen traded over the past couple of seasons. How many of them were in Hamonic's age-range, of Hamonic's calibre, making Hamonic's money and for the same term?

Hamonic was expensive because of all of these factors. Again, the onus is upon you to show where better deals for better players were there to be had.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Nice try, but not remotely comparable.



True. But the going price for a #4 defenceman is not low, and if you're going to say there was a better deal out there to be made, the onus is on you to demonstrate that.



No, but if the Flames pick up a useful UFA winger at the going price, I'll at least be intelligent enough to know that I have no grounds for complaint.

If you want to maintain that there was a better alternative, you should at least be able to describe what that alternative might have been.

Intelligence? Come on now...

So if you don't like a trade, you have to provide an alternative? I would have preferred the Flames not make the trade. There is my alternative.

Just curious what is your alternative to the Phaneuf trade? Or did you like that one too?

[kyuss275]

I can't believe this thread went 15 pages. It's a pretty pathetic thread.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Translation: ‘The Hamonic deal was bad because even though the team needed to make a deal for a defenceman, I know there must have been a better deal out there, even though I have no idea what.’

See the thing is, a guy like MDZ could easily have filled the spot contrary to the narrative that we needed some burly defensive dman. MDZ signed for 3M x 2Y and would have fit perfectly beside Brodie or Hamilton as a #4. It's doubtful a MDZ-Brodie pair woild have been any worse and even it was, we would have continued to patiently build towards a better team while guys like Kylington, Andersson, and Valimaki would have naturally taken over. The picks would have further added to our asset pool instead of depleting from it.

Don't tell me we needed Hamonic, because we didn't. It was a GM trying to get a big, physical RHS (even though we had two RHD in Hamilton and Brodie) because he manufactured an imaginary need for one. He went after a guy coming off a miserable season and paid as if that were not the case.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Intelligence? Come on now...

So if you don't like a trade, you have to provide an alternative? I would have preferred the Flames not make the trade. There is my alternative.

Just curious what is your alternative to the Phaneuf trade? Or did you like that one too?

Cali's original question centered on the Flames defense at the time of the trade, and suggested that a trade was necessary. Do you think no trade was necessary, or just not the Hamonic trade?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Don't tell me we needed Hamonic, because we didn't. It was a GM trying to get a big, physical RHS (even though we had two RHD in Hamilton and Brodie) because he manufactured an imaginary need for one. He went after a guy coming off a miserable season and paid as if that were not the case.

Actually we did have a very glaring need for a physical defensive defencemen. We had just lost Engelland and had nobody who excelled at clearing the net or rubbing guys out along the boards. You need a defensive defenseman or two unless you wanna just let the opposition camp in front of your goalie and get free screens, tips and rebounds. Of course I’m not sure you really appreciate the physical defensive defencemen role and how important it can be since you underrated Engelland the entire time he was here because you overrate corsi.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Let me try this:

Translation "I am so close minded towards other's people views that it is better to mock their opinions than listen to them".

Saying the Flames needed a defenseman and saying they had to trade two 2nds and a first for Travis Hamonic are two entirely different things

I guess you're saying that since the Flames need a winger you are going to praise whatever UFA they may pick up, no matter the deal.

How do you get that from what I am saying? Edit: nvm, I see you were responding to someone else.

However...

The poster made mention that the team was deep on defense and so the trade didn't address a clear need. I posted the situation at the time of the deal to illustrate that there was in fact a clear need, and an overwhelming one too.

You don't have to like what he gave up to get him, but the fact he went out and got someone of Hamonic's caliber was a good thing, full stop.

[Moneyhands23]

So....James Neal in

Good free agency all around

Seems like the GM has recognized some deficiencies and solved them.

I wouldn't fire him at this point.

Seems capable.

[innercliff]

I love that he has the balls to swing for the fences.....
It shows he really wants to get the Flames to the promise lands....

Swing away Tre!!!

[JohnnyB]

Pretty decent signing. I hope Neal hits 30 again playing with Johnny and Monahan. Still, I mostly just hope it's a fun team to watch again and that the team is good on more than just paper. Will wait and see on those. It's a good free agency for the Flames, but not something to rave about and we've yet to see how the moves work out.

[bubbsy]

For all his faults, recognizing a fault/flaw in the roster and going out and trying to do something about it is not one of them.

[Poe969]

Is Maroon still an option?

[Moneyhands23]

Originally Posted by Poe969

Is Maroon still an option?

I hope not. I think the team is solid and can't add more cap space.

Maybe on a 1 year deal, but I doubt he wants that.

[Poe969]

If there was a way to get rid of Brouwer, Maroon would be a big upgrade.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Poe969

If there was a way to get rid of Brouwer, Maroon would be a big upgrade.

This would be asking too much lol. It would be fantastic though and would make our bottom 6 very interesting. Maroon has a great playoff record as wel

[Moneyhands23]

Originally Posted by Poe969

If there was a way to get rid of Brouwer, Maroon would be a big upgrade.

Really the team needs to get rid of Brower just to sign tkachuk next year. I think they would also need to move one of Stone of Frolik to make room for Maroon.

It could be done, but I don't know if it should be.